LONDON, UK—Earlier today, a Sikh activist named Jagmeet Singh disrupted a live show in protest against lack of media coverage of the incidents in Punjab. Jagmeet Singh, a well renowned Sikh activist and a preacher born in the UK, held that international media was not covering the growing brutalities on the Sikhs who have continued protesting since past week due to cases of sacrileges of Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture, in Punjab.
Jagmeet Singh was invited to speak at Sunday Morning Live show on BBC about interfaith marriages. However as the show began, he obstructed cameras and raised his voice against media blackout in Punjab. “I have to say Sikhs are being killed in Punjab and nobody is reporting it. Please report it.”
After the host Sian Williams removed Jagmeet Singh from the show, Basics of Sikhi posted –
“So disappointed by the BBC’s treatment of Jagmeet Singh on Sunday Morning Live this morning. The presenter shut down Singh and repeatedly belittled him for bringing up the issue of violence against Sikhs in Punjab.”
[youtube EXMETiN-jP4]
After the incident, a wave of tweets were seen on Twitter in support of Jagmeet Singh. Sikh Youth all over the country expressed anger over no media coverage in Punjab where 4 Sikhs have died in a week. The hashtag #JagmeetSingh was used widely by Sikhs all over the UK in support of the youth who was kicked out of the debate.
Jagjit Singh, another renowned Sikh speaker from Bradford, UK, posted in support of Jagmeet Singh –
Although some may criticize his actions as inappropriate, personally what I see is a Singh with Panthik dard making a valid point.
Another youth blamed BBC for ignoring the plight of Sikh community in Punjab.
Not the fairest debate chaired by @sianwilliams100 on #BBCSML – #JagmeetSingh outburst is impact of a community being ignored globally
The question is not whether a Sikh can marry a non Sikh. The question raised by Daniels marriage to a Sikh girl was whether they could marry in the Gurdwara as per Sikh religion. The answer to that is that this facility is appropriate to practising Sikhs only. remark made by Edwina curry that Sikhism was created out of hatred towards Hindus and Muslims was highly objectionable. This is sign of ignorance. Sikh religion was created to remove idolatory, superstitions, inequality between men and women, cast system. Guru Granth jie says very clearly that all human beings are equal before God. Social service and fighting against crime helping the needy are the hallmarks of Sikhism. People like Edwina Curry should learn a bit more about religions before making stupid remarks. She should also learn about how many Sikhs sacrificed their lives for non Sikhs including the British. Despite this they are badly treated simply because they are a minority. In India What has happened to Sikhs in the last thirty years is no short of genocide. Thousands of Innocent sikhs were murdered in 1984.False cases registered by police. Many Sikhs arrested by Indian police. No one knows what happened to them. Not a single person prosecuted for this. No action against police. Whole system in India , media , politicians , even the judiciary is biased against minorities and Dalits. Does the world media have any responsibility to report this or the media like Bbc is only interested in what suits the British.
You have no right to decide how two consenting individuals want to marry. You claim Guru Granth Sahib -which has Bani of non-Sikhs- treats human as equal yet claim a non-Sikh can’t have a Sikh ceremony. If your faith is so weak and you can’t tolerate a non-Sikh marrying in Gurdwara then you need to leave Sikhism.
I pray that we should be saved from bigots like Jagmeet. Please don’t show your backwardness, hypocrisy, bigotry, dogma and intolerance on the big screen, if you can’t shut up and stick to the topic.
Aahhh…taking cheap shots by copying my words. Your lack of imagination, creativity and reasoning are the exact reasons for calling you an animal. Further, you admitted it yourself so don’t blame me for it. No Sikh can ever hate women. If women want to do whatever, that’s fine but that’s not the point of argument here. You jump from one topic to another like a monkey (another animal trait). We are discussing inter-faith marriage in Sikhi. I presented 11 summarized points and not one could be refuted by you in a coherent manner.
You are a lust driven psychopath who wishes to destroy the civilized society by promoting your animal characteristics of having an absolute free will which is an impossibility. Why are you so obsessed with sex? Sikhi rules apply to both equally. Sikh men and women are not allowed to marry outside of religion. If they don’t like it, they can leave it and marry whoever they want. You are trying to force your own lust driven opinions on everybody and judge others by your low standards. In a civilized world, people are bound to have rules and regulations. Who are you to force others to behave like animals?
You say: “You don’t deserve to be part of this society. Why don’t you move back to your Hindu Civilization where you come from?”
This proves you are not just under the influence of lust and animalistic thoughts but also driven by prejudice and racism. You clearly believe “this society” (whatever that means in a jungle) is better than a “hindu civilization”. You believe that hindus are backward, uncivilized and women-haters. This is discrimination and leveling a serious accusation on an entire community. You believe hindus are bad for being hindus but we (Sikhs) believe a person is bad for doing bad deeds. Because of this revolutionary thinking, clearly you and I don’t belong to the same society.
Now start barking.
LOL..You are so entertaining. You only proved so far that you hate women rights and now you are against free will of humans also? That explain your slave character. You also want to enslave Sikh women with your primitive slave morality.
BTW, you didn’t tell me why are you not a misogynist if you are so opposed to women marrying who she wants? Why are you not a misogynist if you are against inter-faith marriage of women? Why is primitive Rehat Maryada which you follow not misogynist? By opposing a woman’s choice you become a misogynist.
Yep, you don’t deserve to live in this society. This society doesn’t respects your values. These are primitive Hindu-Brahmin values. You need to move back to the cave where you come from. Please leave this country.
So you admit you are a dog then. In that case we humans don’t argue with dogs because animals don’t posses reasoning and higher intelligence. A Sikh’s body is surrendered to the Guru along with mind and soul so your argument that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body while being a Sikh is futile. We are not against women’a rights. We are against inter-faith marriage in Gurmat and Anand Karaj be it a man or a woman. No exceptions for anyone.
You never refuted a single point. All you did was bark. This is not reasoning at human level.
If you don’t want to debate with then why are posting.
Who said you are human? You are below animals and worms You are a low-life Misanthrope. A coward in the garb of human being who hates women. You want to suppress and hate rights of women and yet expect this society to treat you with equality. Really?
You claim one thing yet claim the opposite, but say you can reason. That’s hilarious!
“We are not against women’a rights.” yet you are against woman want to do anything within their bodies. Who are you to decide that? You are opposed to sexual rights of women and you are not a misogynist? How?
You don’t deserve to be part of this society. Why don’t you move back to your Hindu Civilization where you come from?
Oh so you are openly opposed to the rights of women and you are not a misogynist?
Same repeated useless posts by confused identity and no evidence. A dog barks the same way every time in every situation.
You never gave any evidence in the first place. You keep spewing lies. I have refuted your lies. You can call me a dog, but do you know dogs also bark at liars, thieves and thugs like you.
Any woman can do whatever she wants to do with her body. Its not your body. What is it to you? You misogynists should stick with your own imbecile bodies.
You are still not proving where in Guru Granth Sahib it says that Sikh cannot marry a non-Sikh or a Sikh should marry only a Sikh.
The more you write the more you prove that you both are obsessively misogynistic, utterly patriarchal, delusional and dangerously paranoid morons.
Its great that you can’t even let women marry from their own sexual choice and you have the arrogance to say you are not a misogynist. A perfect ideal of Honor Killing of Sikh women.
Not only you both are Anti-Sikh misogynists, but you are also hypocrites. You don’t believe in sexual choice of women yet want only heterosexuals to marry. You really know how to make a fool of your own selves.
Why you hate woman’s sexuality so much that you do everything to deny her own sexual identity, her own body? Isn’t sex part of nature? What do you know about sex?
The 52 Hakums were written by your forefather Brahmins, not Guru Gobind Singh. This kind of unsubstantiated Brahministic Rehat is the root cause why Sikhs like you hate women and suppress their sexuality. Stop reading Brahmin documents and try to say they were written Gurus. You don’t even follow Guru Granth Sahib and you call yourself a Sikh. What a hypocrite?
Misogynists like you who want to control woman’s bodies have no place in this society.
Lol what an obvious mangina/white knight you are, little Harry.
You believe a woman’s right to unrestricted sexuality is above belief in Sikhism, which actually requires one to control their Kaam, by the way. A girl that marries out of her “sexual choice”, as opposed to Guru’s word, isn’t a Sikh.
The Hukam for Sikh parents to marry their daughter to a Sikh man was PROTECT them from getting married to a Hindu family, where should would have been expected to commit suicide via Sati after her husbands death and subjected to Brahmanistic rituals/nonsense which your Brahmin ancestors were so proud of.
So according to you, Brahmins wrote Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s 52 Hukams to protect Sikh girls from Brahmin rituals?
Is that supposed to be some sort of secret, high-level Brahmin logic that only an enlightened man like you can understand?
Lol you’ve certainly got a talent for comedy, little Harry. You make a better clown today than you’ll ever make yourself a better Sikh.
So disgusting that you view woman as nothing but sex objects for you to fulfill your carnal desires.
WELL SAIS “SIKH” and RS. These little harry’s are not worth the argument – they better go back to RSS and be done with – we are wasting our replies to him – he is certainly brainwashed by some hindu baba or something.
Oh so according to you, Sikhism is actually opposed to woman’s rights.
You are quite an example of sinister use of fraud, false history and deceit to suppress the rights of Sikh women. So, What is your solution for women who exercise their own right to make their sexual choice in life?
No, I don’t view women as sex objects. Women are free to do what they want with their bodies. However, you are a misogynist and can’t accept that. You on the other hand want to sexually enslave women by choosing who they have sex with. You fit the definition of misogynist. Your words rightly prove it yet by claiming otherwise you come out as a total fabricator and a liar. You scorn women who choose their own sexual partner. That’s not just hypocrisy, but arrogance and transparent hatred towards women.
Indeed, Sikhism does restrict women’s and men’s sexual rights, because sexual freedom is not the most important thing to practicing Sikhs, while it obviously is most important to you.
What are you going to do now?
In case, you want a gerberized version of the discussion:
1) Definition of a Sikh repudiates the argument of “personal choice” in marriage.
2) Laavan Bani requires the couple (heterosexual only) to follow Satguru, meditate upon Naam and reach the spiritual heights of achieving the equipoise state. This is not possible without both having the same faith. Hence, inter-faith marriage is debunked in Gurmat.
3) Anand Karaj requires the couple to go around Gurbani four times which represents Satguru being the center of their lifestyle. A non-Sikh participating in Anand Karaj is lying at the very outset of marriage because he is a non-follower. Thus, no inter-faith marriage possible within the parameters of Anand Karaj.
4) Criteria of choosing a marriage partner in Gurmat is rehat and steadfastness in Satguru’s way. So inter-faith marriage stands rejected.
5) Gurbani requires Sikhs to be in the company of Naam Abhiyasi Sikhs and staying away from those who do not meditate upon Naam. Therefore, a non-Sikh does not qualify as a true companion.
6) Anand Karaj means union of two souls who tread the same path given by Satguru. This union is only possible through the Shabad of the Guru. Thus, union cannot take place when both are mentally following different paths and a non-Sikh doesn’t practice the Shabad.
7) A non-Sikh is called manmukh in Gurbani. Followers of Gurmat are called Gursikhs. Both are opposite ends of the pole. Hence, inter-faith marriage cannot work in Gurmat.
8) Sikhs are required to not have any relations with Minas, drug-addicts, followers of living gurus, masands, those who kill their daughters and monas (sirgum – those who cut their hair). In light of this, having a physical and social relation with a non-Sikh is unacceptable.
9) Sikh Gurus never supported or preached inter-faith marriage. The only marriage they supported and put in practice is the only one acceptable in Sikhi.
10) All historical texts including Sau Sakhi and 52 Hukams of Guru Sahib and rehatnamas advocate Sikh must marry a Sikh.
11) Current Sikh Rehat Maryada is derived from Sikh history and principles. It was unanimously agreed upon by major Sikh organizations and eminent Sikh scholars. Hence, it is an acceptable document. According to it, a Sikh must marry a Sikh. Injunction related to women is not restricted to women only. Its general principle is applicable to men just like when Gurbani instructs Sikh men to look upon other women as their mothers, daughters and sisters. No one can argue that it gives freedom to women and suppresses men from their “personal rights”. General principles are always applicable to everyone equally.
Now, prove the above reasons wrong from Gurbani, Vaars and historical texts. Otherwise, you have terribly lost.
Harry, from all of your posts, show me a single shred of evidence proving your point? I have provided valid reasoning from Gurbani principles. My arguments were derived from definition of a Sikh and way of life dictated by Laavan. I also cited examples of the Gurus. This is evidence enough for any reasonable person who knows to debate logically. However, you are a moron, bigot, lying imbecile and a hypocrite who knows nothing better than make personal attacks and run around in circles blindly. You fail to see the truth. Your every flimsy reason has been refuted.
Sikhs don’t suppress women. Sikh men and women equally cannot marry outside of religion. For a Sikh, obeying the command of Satguru is everything. A person who wishes to choose his own “sexual partner” isn’t a Sikh. Criteria for choosing a partner is rehat not sex. You clearly fail to understand the simple logic. I suggest taking a critical reasoning course first before making more fool of yourself here. Go do some soul searching and determine your own identity first. Are you a son of a Singh or some harry potter?
No, you need to prove where in Gurbani it says Sikhs need to only marry Sikhs. You haven’t proven anything. Its your claim not mine. I don’t have to prove anything. I have to simply disprove your foolish claim. This is how logic works, pal. You are making flawed argument.
So, if you can rise above your depraved animal behavior of commuting verbal atrocities maybe you can cure your self from the metal disorders you are suffering from.
You seem to an abusive Punjabi male chauvinist who loves suppressing Sikh woman’s’ choices because thugs like you don’t have confidence in your own manhood. You and Jagmeet are imbeciles and cowards who suppress a woman’s choice and right.
There have been countless inter-faith marriages in Punjab among Sikhs in history. The record is undeniable. So, are they all null and void because an imbecile like you can’t see Sikh women marrying a non-Sikh, but is okay otherwise?
With that in mind, why haven’t thugs and Hindu fanatics like you have said anything about the bigoted/anti-woman “Sikh” Rehat Maryada? Do woman have choice to marry, according to this misogynistic document?
Calm down, little Harry. Don’t burst into an anger tantrum since you’ve lost the argument.
First you argued about how Jagmeet’s tactics were not to your liking. Having lost that argument, then you switched to “interfaith marriage”, now having lost that argument, you’ve switched to woman’s rights. I could debunk your argument again, but that would be a waste of my time as you’ll go on to gay marriage in Sikhism (which you probably support as well) as nothing in SGGS says anything against it, and then something else.
Nobody here cares what you think. I’ve been making posts here for a very long time so everyone knows where I stand. You on the other had just popped out of nowhere last night and have exposed yourself as an RSS agent.
You’re obviously insecure and confused about your own identity. I know, it’s sad. You probably had no friends growing up and have resorted to the voices you hear in your head. You need to be put in a straitjacket before you do something stupid to yourself or someone else.
There has never been an “interfaith marriage” sanctioned by the Gurus, that is undeniable which is why you haven’t been able to provide an example and hence your argument spectacularly blows up in your face. Sikhs follow their Gurus lives and Gurbani (Guru’s word), not fools like you. So you can argue all you want but until you give an example of the GURUS sanctioning “interfaith marriage”, I’m afraid you are at a loss.
Have the last word, kid. I’ve got better things to do than waste time with an inbred Brahmin like you.
What better things you got to do except suppressing women in your household? You not gonna say anything about the misogynistic Rehat Maryada because you got nothing to say. You are a lying hypocrite.
It is people like you who are silent observers when Sikh women are murdered by their families for choosing their own sexual partner because people like you have a confused manhood and follow a primitive doctrine written by your forefathers Brahmins.
We need to send primitive lunatics like you back into the stone age where you clearly belong. You can never reason. You are an irrational and disrespectful moron who doesn’t deserve to live in this society.
I wouldn’t have answered you back, but since you insulted Guru Gobind Singh Ji and are making a mockery of his Hukams, I have no choice.
That part of the Rehat Maryada is actually based on Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s 52 Hukams, authored by himself and not by Brahmins as you proclaim. Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Hukams were written before he passed away in Nanded in 1708.
Hukam 38:
“Sir munae noo kanaiaa nahee daenee. Uos ghar daeve jithae Akal Purukh dee sikhee ha, jo karza-ai naa hovae, bhalae subhaa da hovae, bibaekee atae gyanvaan hovae|”
“Do not given a daughter’s hand in marriage to a shaven one. Give her to a household where the Undying divine personification Akal purakh and tenets of Sikhism are respected, to household without debt, of a pleasing nature, which is disciplined and educated.”
Pretty low of you to call Guru Gobind Singh Ji a misogynist simply because he asks Sikh parents to be prudent and to marry their daughters in a household where they won’t be subjected to Brahmanical nonsense. And according to you, all Sikhs around the world who follow his Hukams are “lying hypocrites” because they instill Guru’s teachings to their children, which stipulates that the parents of a Sikh woman must marry her to a Sikh man (and likewise for Sikh men)? Girls didn’t just marry whomever they desired during Guru’s times and many still don’t do so today, except in Western, liberalized countries. You probably also think Guru Gobind Singh Ji is prejudiced against “shaven men” as well.
Sikh men are also obviously expected to marry Sikh women, there’s no double-standard or misogyny here; it’s all in your head. Just because the Hukam doesn’t explicitly say so doesn’t mean men are given a free pass to marry any woman out of faith, or even another man, for that matter.
Guru Gobind Singh Ji actually assumes a level of common sense within his disciples, which you obviously lack and hence, the reason why the Hukam and non-support for “interfaith marriage” doesn’t make any sense to you. He assumes that a practicing Sikh male who understands Sikhi, would obviously want to marry a woman who also thinks along Gursikhi lines, and would by default choose to marry a Sikh woman.
If you really do want to marry a non-Sikh girl or a Sikh girl wants to marry a non-Sikh man, certainly I’m not (and neither is Jagmeet Singh) stopping him/her from doing so in a non-Gurdwara setting. I couldn’t care less if you decide to marry a Christian/Hindu/Muslim/etc. girl or even another man. However, if you want to get married in a Gurdwara (literally “House of the Guru”), then you have to follow the rules of the house and Hukams of the Gurus and not just your own feelings/ideas.
Anand Karaj laavan are for both the bride and groom to affirm before Guru Granth Sahib Ji that as Sikhs, they have committed to living their lives together according to Gursikhi principles, which includes Gurbani and Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Hukams (among other teachings and practices of Guru’s).
It’s simply not possible to follow Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Hukams and at the same time, not follow Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Hukams; the two are mutually exclusive. You’re either following them or not following them; there’s no grey area or room to debate. Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
That’s why you can’t find any example of Guru’s sanctioning “interfaith marriage” because it doesn’t make any sense to any person with a rational mind. Like I’ve said before, if the Guru’s really did want to sanction “interfaith marriage”, then they definitely would have done so within their lifetime as they were not afraid to challenge the prevailing norms of society.
All the women in my household actually understand and respect Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Hukams, which is why the issue never arose in the first place. No one celebrates when a women is killed and they are treated the same as men and have full education and careers, and children. The women in your house are probably of a very liberal character given your confused upbringing and distorted and view of Sikhism.
Since 1. The Gurus never sanctioned “interfaith marriage” as there’s no shred of evidence, not even the slightest hint/rumor of them ever doing so, and 2. They explicitly stipulate that a Sikh woman must marry a Sikh man (and by equality of Sikhi, a Sikh man must marry a Sikh woman), your argument is null and void.
It’s not possible to explain this in any simpler way. If you can’t understand this, you seriously need to consider special education and possibly get yourself a psychological evaluation from a qualified psychologist.
May Waheguru help you learn how to learn.
Khalistan Zindabad!
Why is the burden of proof on me? You are making a foolish claim not supported by Gurbani. You have to prove where in Gurbani it is explicitly forbidden to marry a non-Sikh? So, far you morons have provided nothing.
The burden of proof is on you because your claim has no factual basis in Sikhism as per Sikh history or Sikh doctrine, and hence, has no basis in reality.
If you strongly believe the Gurus would have sanctioned “interfaith marriage”, then give ONE example where they did. You know there’s no such example, yet your childish mind can’t get over it.
Since you can’t provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of any of the Sikh Gurus sanctioning “interfaith marriage” as per your claim, you’ve obviously failed to make your point and proven yourself a fool before everyone over and over again.
You sound like a pre-pubescent high school boy with a crush on a non-Sikh girl. Is that the case, little Harry? Perhaps you can speak to your parents about this and they can give you some guidance, if they follow Sikhism properly.
Give yourself a decade (or two, I understand you’re a bit “slow”) and maybe after you grow up, this will make some more sense to you.
We should write letters of complaint to the director of the BBC
Balbir veer ji there is a petition going for banning BBC licence. Have you seen this yet? a link on watsup!!
Please sign and send.
Also on-line petition for calling this government to protest against the government of India abusing the Sikhs.
The proof has already been provided but for an ignorant fool like you who himself is uncertain about his own identity probably due to the result of an “inter-faith” marriage of two confused people is hard to see and realize. When each and every reason of yours is refuted you come up with a new one without refuting my arguments. Evidence must be derived from the lives of the Gurus, historical texts, Rehatnamas and other texts. You first resorted to Rehat Maryada which was explained. Then you resorted to Gurbani which was explained but you refused to remain in oblivion.
No Holy Scripture in the world lists everything explicitly so your case in weak to begin with. Other historical texts are also important and authentic to shed light on Sikh practices. Gurbani defines who a Sikh is and what marriage life entails. Laavan clearly delineate leading a spiritual lifestyle according to Satguru’s instructions. This is a proof enough that both must be following the same Satguru, meditating upon the same Naam (Gurmantar) and living the same way of life in order to achieve salvation. Have you even read Laavan composition? Further, Sikh Gurus practiced what they taught. Since, they never had or even supported any inter-faith marriage; it goes to show that it is not allowed in Gurmat.
You want a proof from Gurbani when it is already provided based on the principles listed in Gurbani. Since you claim that inter-faith marriage is acceptable in Sikhi, the burden of the proof is now on you. If you state it is not found in Gurbani then you clearly do not know. If you state that it is a personal choice then you clearly do not understand the very definition of a Sikh who is a humble servant of the Guru and must surrender his mind to the Guru before he starts the spiritual path. Since a Sikh submits to the Guru, his personal choices go out the window. Hence, he cannot marry anyone he wishes based on “personal choice” reasoning. It also shows your ignorance about the Sikh marriage lifestyle. Inter-faith marriages in general are bound to have issues. If both don’t care about the faith then clearly it is not an inter-faith marriage and neither one cares enough about the faith they belong to. So why all the fuss about particular marriage ceremony?
In Sikhi, it is not my or anyone’s choice. It is the Hukam of Satguru. That’s it. If one doesn’t follow the Naam marag then they are not worthy of doing sangat with let alone marrying them. Guru Sahib states in Gurbani that He don’t even want to see the person who doesn’t japp Naam (Jo Na Bhajante Narayana, Tin Ka Mein Na Karon Darshna). So explain to me how can a person even obtain Naam let alone meditate upon it without ever taking Amrit? Provide proof from Gurbani and Vaars. Then how can a Sikh do sangat of such a person let alone marry them? Do you have any proof from Sikh sources mr. confused identity?
RS,
It seems you don’t even have single brain cell working in your head. I call people like you Brahmins who stop Sikhs from marrying out of their own choice and the way they want. You can marry who you want (Sikh or non-Sikh), but you have no right to ram down your ways on others.
You obviously lack reading comprehension, little Harry. Read my post way up on top where I said Sikhs are free to marry whomever they want, but only Sikhs can marry INSIDE a Gurdwara via Anand Karaj.
If a Sikh isn’t even willing to invest in a life partner that believes in Sikhi, then that obviously raises the question of what that supposed Sikh values more in life in the first place: Sikhism or their life partner. Any true Sikh that actually understands and practices Sikhi will never even consider marrying someone non-Sikh.
Can you answer the question I asked you, little Harry?
* Can you cite a single example of an “interfaith marriage” sanctioned by the Gurus in their lifetimes? *
If the Gurus never sanction “interfaith marriage” during their lifetimes, what leap of logic do you use to justify that they would today? If you can’t cite even ONE example, you’ve basically admitted your failure in making your point.
If the Gurus really wanted to sanction interfaith marriage, they obviously would have, just like they stopped Satti (widows burning themselves on their dead husbands funeral pyres, as per your Brahmin traditions), discrimination based on caste (again as per your Brahmin traditions), women being impure (again as per your Brahmin traditions), etc. Gurus lead by example and weren’t afraid of defying the prevailing social norms.
Time for you to invest in a dhoti and bindi my friend, and complete your Brahmin form lol. I’m confident you’ll make an excellent Pandit.
Really? Are Sikhs free to marry anyone they want? The Brahmin written Rehat Maryada states that “a daughter of Sikh should marry a Sikh.” Tell me, how did the misogynists thugs write this anti-women document? Isn’t this the reason thugs like you believe they have the right to restrict choice of a woman?
Gurbani says a sorrowful person perceives everyone to be in sorrow and an ill person sees everyone as ill. Similarly, a brahmin sees others to be brahmins.
Show me a single brahmin name in the Rehat Maryada document. Show me a single example from brahminism that advocates Sikhs must marry Sikhs. Barking “brahmins” doesn’t prove anything except your stupidity.
Sikh Rehat Maryada does not state that a Sikh male can marry a non-Sikh woman. All Sikh historical texts state that a Sikh must marry a Sikh. Sikh Guru Sahibans never promoted, preached or advocated inter-faith marriages. If one is a Sikh then by definition they are servants of the Guru’s commands and principles. Hence, they cannot give precedence to their personal choices and desired by marrying a non-Sikh. A true Sikh would never even think about marrying a non-Sikh. If one wants to do whatever they want then they are not following the Sikh path. Anand Karaj outlines Sikh way of life in marriage which requires both to tread the spiritual path of Gurmat. A non-Sikh has no place in it. Thus, no Anand Karaj for non-Sikhs. One who marries a non-Sikh goes against Gurmat and turns their back on the Guru. In Sikhi it is either the Guru’s way or no way. So leave personal opinions and stupid “individual choice” out of Sikhi.
Where is it stated in Gurbani Sikh cannot marry a non-Sikh? Do you know how many non-Sikhs contributed to Gurbani?
I can spin the same argument on you. Where is it written in Gurbani that a Sikh can marry a non-Sikh? Present me with evidence from Gurbani, Vaars, Rehatnamas etc. to back up your claim.
Laavan clearly state what kind of a life a couple should lead. It requires following Guru’s path of meditating upon Naam and Satguru. There is no other Satguru than Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Naam can only be obtained from Panj Pyare. Purpose of living a householder life is to practice Sikhi, meditating with your spouse and having sangat in the household as well as bringing up children in Sikhi enviornment. This is not possible in inter-faith marriage. You have not refuted a single argument presented to you.
No non-Sikh has contributed to Gurbani. All bhagat were Sikhs of Guru Sahib as has been proven in Bhagat Bani Itihaas by Giani Gurdit Singh. Even if I assume for the sake of argument that bhagat were non-Sikhs, how does it prove inter-faith marriage is allowed in Sikhi? Did bhagats have any inter-faith marriage? No. Does their bani advocate such a practice? No. So stop being illogical and making a fool out of yourself.
Where does in Gurbani states Sikhs should marry Sikhs? The burden of proof is on Brahmins like you and Jagmeet. If you can’t prove anything, stop beating the bush and turning away from the question. You can’t answer. Since you can’t prove anything you are agreeing with me that there is nowhere in Gurbani it says Sikhs can’t marry non-Sikhs. Sikhs have right to marry who they want and how they want. Its not up to you Brahmins and Mahants to decide and take away peoples’ right.
Let me get this straight, according to you, all Sikhs that decide to marry Sikhs for their religion are Brahmanistic? So according to you, all the Gurus were Brahmanistic?
Can you cite a single example of an “interfaith marriage” sanctioned by the Gurus in their lifetimes?
If not, your argument is moot.
…in marriage, et al_/\_
Who was this hindu woman “Kapoor” what does she know about sikh “Lavaan” – who is she to comment – it might be allowed to go around the fire whoever likes but Anand Karaj is solely for Sikhs – why would anyone who does not believe in GURU GRANTH SAHIB JI want to get married in Gurdwara. No Anand Karaj for non-sikhs – never !!!
This Jewish lady needs to search her own religion and certainly not comment on Sikh Religion – she is clearly off her rocker thinking Sikhism is born out of hatered – what? born out of oppression to protect the needy! Get your facts right ex-mp’s shows lack of eduction of these people come and sit on the panels! Well done Jagmeet!!we are proud of you!
Well done Soorma Jagmeet Singh Jio.
Jewish lady talk about negativity being bad, but she said Sikh religion hate caste system of hinduism, thus, Sikhi was created? Hate is a negative word, Sikhi is to prove Vahiguroo God loves all regardless of caste, but Guru Nanak Dev Jio never had or has any h…for caste system, just that caste is no reason to be inhumane, and non sikh have to know Guru Granth Sahib Jio message of love, to attain true happiness
HAVE TO APOLOGISE TO RS – sorry my earlier reply at 15.46 – this was meant for Harry Singh! RS your comments are commendable ! well done!
Some poodles are still sucking up to BBC – BBC are blinded so was Nihal’s show – I was so disappointed at how Nihal was dampening Jagmeet’s supporters and Jagmeet. Well done Simran for speaking out the way you did Nihal simply could not answer you “why BBC are not in Punjab” – because BBC too busy reporting cats being killed – cow being killed in India…….
we are hindustani not a khalistani,so say hindustan zindabad.vande matram
GO TO HELL WITH HINDUSTAN!!!!! BE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BE BUT WE ARE KHALISTANI AND WILL REMAIN THAT WAY! WHAT YOU ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
“inappropriate behaviour.. Ram things down people’s throat” From the beginning, that entire segment was disrespectful biased, the entire panel picked on jagmeet singh plus who are these people from their appearance they don’t look like there actually practising their religion so can their responses hold any weight why weren’t imams pundits presits on the panel why were people who are clueless taking about worshiping fires converting and discussing their person life on the show the host that won’t even let jagmeet singh talk.
I was expecting to get up earlier and thought it was going to be more loud shouting but he was very respectful and sophisticated hr made his point which is applauded.
To say he did something wrong is stupid if your people are dying why wouldn’t you the pains you feel to be shared so ppl know th truth why should we stay quite and be “normal” for people say he made Sikhs look bad impression. You should take good look at the government whose interests are for themselves yet Sikhs are looking out for mankind.
What he did was amazing and excellent but I feel we need to take a step further if we continue to be pushed around because end of thr day they will still hate on us even if we’re doing good try to break the backs of the Sikh, Sikhs never asked from help from anyone as whatever action they needed to take for justice they would commit to it themselves.
Sikhs should stop thinking and be afraid of how we are perceived because from everyone point of view being in u. K how many years and this panel nor knows anything about Sikhi or cares about Sikhs either so why should we continue to be like thr normal citizen, The khalsa was made to protect the world not be protected by others . Sikhs stop thinking and start acting and don’t give a rats ass about someone’s opinon about you.
All that is happening in punjab is not covered by even indian media which shows lack of media independence and czar rule. International awareness and pressure is must to bring right thing in notice of people. A community who has given their lives for mankind is treated so inhumanly has to be displaced by any means. In between Jagmeet effort to unhide truth on bbc is much appreciable. May be some mean people for whatever mean reason may not like this.
I am proud of you Jagmeet. At least you made aware BBC that they are not supporting sikhs at all.
Narinder you are right – very well done Jagmeet!! You have made them listen.
Harry “Singh”,
Thanks for being an apologist for state sponsored murder of innocent protesters in the so-called “world’s largest democracy”.
Thanks for poo-pooing on a brave Singh who spoke out against state-sponsored murder in the only way his message could have been possibly heard against a biased media outlet.
There’s plenty of RSS thugs like you trolling these forums trying to divide the Panth and you will get called out EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Grows some stones boy, the world isn’t a friendly place.
Tell me how does Jagmeet’s behavior help us? Is BBC going to cover the state of Punjab positively?
You seem to have mental problem, my friend. Its people like you who are trying rile up Sikhs so that Hindu fascists can come and justify mass killings of Sikhs. We should be careful from agent provocateurs like yourself who abuse Guru Gobind Singh’s message to justify your own stupidity in front of the world.
Jagmeet could have refused to appear on BBC or could have written in a polite manner to the BBC editor, but he made a fool out of himself.
Many non-Sikh people are now actually aware of atrocities taking place in India against Sikhs and are googling about 1984 and the decade of insurgency afterwards.
Many non-Sikhs of other minorities (which the BBC is also biased against) on social media applauded Jagmeet for speaking out. Sure there’s some people that he rubbed the wrong way, but given the dire situation the Sikhs are in right now, basically ANY publicity is good publicity.
Maybe his method wasn’t to your liking, but it did create shock value and did get people to start learning more about the plight of Sikhs in Punjab. You’re obviously a juvenile kid with a nieve worldview who thinks taking the high road with a very biased media outlet like the BBC would have been effective.
I’ve never advocated picking up swords and guns in my more than 1 year of posting on this site. The only provocateurs here are fools like you who disguise yourself as Sikhs with names like “Harry Singh” and make a post against whatever good Sikhs try to do in your desperate attempts to malign and divide the Panth and then disappear and post under a new name.
We know your game.
I specifically quoted Guru Gobind Singh Ji, to take action against oppression instead of sitting around doing nothing, and Jagmeets unorthodox tactics were justified given his position in front of a biased media outlet.
“Jagmeet could have refused to appear on BBC or could have written in a polite manner to the BBC editor, but he made a fool out of himself.”
And you think that would have been even 10% as effective? Do you think the BBC would have given a shit about that? You should be in a straitjacket my friend. The only fool here is you.
Great answer! Every time we act like idiots in front of BBC, the BBC will surely cover us. Right? Are you out of our own mind? There is no excuse for this. Jagmeet damaged our cause. The last time I know Sonia Deol covered Op Bluestar, Sikhs among us hurled abuse and insults at her. What a way to treat a woman? Why should we be covered when we got thugs and hooligans like you.
BBC is obviously biased against Sikhs and other minorities. With your master Modi dropping by to visit soon, BBC would never have covered human rights issues in Punjab at the risk of compromising trade deals. You’re a total fool as you can’t see this.
Jagmeet was actually very respectful to the host and others and greatly strengthened our cause. The host however, was very rude and disrespectful and kept cutting him off without letting him finish. Even non-Sikh people agree to this and support Jagmeet all over social media. Did you even see the whole program?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSkQhdAP9Nc
Look at the way they take turns attacking Jagmeet like a pack of wild hyenas with their totally garbage arguments in favor of interfaith Anand Karaj and the way he keeps calm and still respectfully answers them back despite being outnumbered. As an RSS agent, you probably favor interfaith Anand Karaj too. No wonder you think Jagmeet was being so rude to everyone when most people on social media think it’s the other way around. It’s pretty clear to me who’s acting like idiots in this video and who’s acting like a sensible, mature person.
The one Singh’s bold and unorthodox (and yet very respectful) style gave more exposure and media coverage to the killing of innocent Sikhs by Indian government forces than all of the world’s media combined.
We’re not talking about Sonia Deol or woman’s rights; why are you trying to desperately change the topic? I found her documentary to be overall okay, but with some inaccuracies and glaring omissions, which made it biased in favour of the Congress Governments actions. This will obviously anger many Sikhs who lost family members in 1984 and the decade afterwards. It was obvious some parts were deliberately biased to surreptitiously justify Congress Government’s actions. Just because she’s Sikh and a woman doesn’t mean she’s above criticism and doesn’t entitle her to biased journalism on such a sensitive topic.
The only thugs and hooligans are RSS agents like you who disguise yourselves as Sikhs and get into a tailspin when called out.
What’s your master Modi going to do next, ban social media in Punjab? Maybe that will fit in very well with his “Digital India” initiative lol.
RS – I could not have put it better myself!! These people are poodles kicking and shouting – when you have so called sikhs like this in our society we dont need any other enemies!
Yes, I saw the debate. Honestly, Jagmeet is an absolute example of religious bigotry. It is Brahminical minds like Jagmeet and you who give us bad press. It is none of your business how two individuals want to get married. You have no right. Keep your bigoted beliefs to yourself.
You’re obviously blind, deaf and dumb.
It’s per Sikh Rehat Maryada and one of Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s 52 Hukams that a Sikh must only marry a Sikh.
You are free to leave Sikhism if you disagree with Sikh Rehat Maryada and Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s Hukams.
Sure you can marry whoever you want, buy only Sikhs can get married in a Gurdwara via Anand Karaj.
The Panth is strengthening day by day and unanimously disagrees with you.
Go play some video games amd eat some Cheetos, little Harry. The Panth is better off and stronger without you.
The”Sikh” Rehat Maryada doesn’t even states Sikh can’t marry non-Sikh. It states that “a daughter of a Sikh will marry Sikh.” So, if Sikh men can marry a non-Sikh in front of Guru Granth Sahib then why can’t women?
This is not the way to do this and I don’t agree with Jagmeet Singh. You can’t simply ram things down peoples’ throats.
“When all means have failed, it is righteous to raise the sword.” Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj.
In this case, it was righteous for Jagmeet Singh to raise his voice.
Sorry, you are abusing the quote by Guru Gobind Singh by using it as an excuse for Jagmeet’s rude behavior.
Nothing rude about his behavior. If you’re so-skinned then stop watching TV.
Actually, it’s perfectly valid as the BBC has a very large presence in Punjab and India and still hasn’t said anything, obviously because Modi is coming to UK soon and trade interests outweigh human rights of a small minority.
You’re obviously an RSS troll; go drink some cow piss my friend and refresh yourself.
Thanks for showing the level of your depraved thinking. You have only proven yourself good for assault and harassment.
This is about Guru Sahib and the panth. Does not matter if he is”rude”. Honestly. lok at what your saying lol
You must be a tout and choli chuk for Badal
What would you do – If BBC was listening and reporting would this have happened! Its only being brought to light is because Jagmeet acted in a way he did!!!
Excellent job Bhai Jagmeet Singh Ji. All of the Panth is with you.
BBC is a racist, anti-Sikh media outfit and Bhai Sahib did the right thing by calling them out for their total lack of coverage of unrest in Punjab and murdering of innocent Sikh protesters by Punjab Police backed by RSS terrorists.
Khalistan Zindabad!
Well done Jagmeet Singh! You are one brave individual – you have our support – Well done again talking to NIHAL this morning. BBC in with government who is pussyfooting around INDIA for trade and MODI. If a cow gets killed in Uttar Pardesh its reported – Patels protest in Gujarat over some jobs it gets reported . They cannot go to Punjab.
SIMRAN YOUR ARGUMENT IS WELL COMMANDED TOO! we are proud of you young Sikhs – we are all behind you. KHALISTAN ZINDABAAD!!!